Abortion and Reconciliation (0.00 / 0)

Can the abortion language be changed via reconciliation?  It certainly seems a bit removed from the obvious budgetary issues allowed.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:26:05 PM UTC

maybe (0.00 / 0)

maybe because they're discussing government spending they could potentially modify it via reconciliation

---

by: lutton @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:32:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

one scenario (0.00 / 0)

The Byrd Rule can be waived with 60 votes. And I can imagine that the Republicans could come forward with quite a few anti-abortion votes to save it. (I can also imagine they won't, it's just a scenario.)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

question about Stupak block (0.00 / 0)

I just want to confirm my understanding of the situation.  Any discussion regarding language is dealing with subsequent bills, either reconciliation or a separate bill dealing with abortion, right?  Doesn't the House have to vote up or down on the existing language of the Senate HCR bill as already passed by the Senate?

So essentially the Stupak block is negotiating for something new that the Senate will also have to separately consider?

---

by: lutton @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:29:57 PM UTC

Is the 'Stupak block' a contrived poison pill?? (0.00 / 0)

I wish OL would post the clip of Stupak on Hardballs last week for a clearer picture on where the language problem might really be.  
According to Stupak's own words, he's perfectly satisfied with the Hyde amendment remaining the law of the land.  However, Hyde does not apply to the Senate's bill. Hyde only applies to certain types of legislation.  So the Senate pro-lifers added language Stupak doesn't believe is equal to that of Hyde.
His offer of a fix is to create a Hyde rider to accompany the Senate bill to the House. He used another name for the rider - but it's effect is just as valid as if the Hyde language were in the Senate's  bill.  

I think it's a perfectly acceptable solution.  So who then is causing the continued turmoil if Stupak himself has publicly offered the ideal solution?  
Is it Harry or Steney whining again about actually getting off their asses and use the procedures they were given control of??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:08:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question for Chris (4.00 / 1)

I moved this from the last thread as this one is actually more appropriate.  

----

You, I, and some others have had some trouble seeing eye to eye on the future of the HCR bill and passage of said legislation, but I would like your candid opinion on a possible compromise.
I think that most folks on the left like me that want to see this bill dead think that way due to the mandate.  If there is no PO or cost controls, how the hell can we be expected to have to buy insurance or be criminals?  With some sort of PO or Medicare buy in, this concern would be offset.

So if we can't get a PO in the bill and pass it, can we get the mandate removed and pass what is left?  If this was possible at this stage in the game, I think both of our divisions could unite behind the bill that is left and pass this thing.  After all, if Obama just wants any bill to claim victory, doesn't that fit his need?  You (and your camp) still get many of the points you outlined earlier, and we (the kill the bill camp) could definitely support the bill if no mandate is required.

Why don't we push on this?  Why would it not work?  I look forward to your answer, you have excellent insight into these machinations of congress.  

---

by: zot2323 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:47:41 PM UTC

Mandate (0.00 / 0)

Some things just flow from others.  If you want to allow people with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance, you have to have a mandate; otherwise there would be no reason to buy insurance until you really needed it.  But you can't force people who don't have the money to buy insurance, so you need to subsidize those people.

The whole bill fails without the mandate.  The Clinton people convinced me of this two (!) years ago.  This isn't in the cards at all.  Won't happen.

There are a few items in the Senate bill that might help you; though perhaps not.  I think co-opts are actually in the bill.  Also, I seem to remember something about requiring at least one non-profit insurance program be available in each exchange.  One or the other might take the bite out a little bit.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:00:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Wait (0.00 / 0)

That's the reason everyone has to buy junk insurance?

 

If you want to allow people with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance, you have to have a mandate

There's no mention anywhere that insurance corporations can't charge four to five times for those with pre-existing conditions, thus pricing them out of insurance market, anyway. I'm sorry, but the logic of everyone having to purchase insurance from these crooks, so they'll insure people with pre-existing conditions,* doesn't seem logical.

*the way insurance corps define "pre-existing condition" includes everyone, since we all have some sort of pre-existing condition, from zits to constipation.    

---

by: lefttown @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:23:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not true (4.00 / 1)

There's no mention anywhere that insurance corporations can't charge four to five times for those with pre-existing conditions, thus pricing them out of insurance market, anyway.

Wow.  No wonder people are so against this bill.  I assumed the Left understood the bill better than the Right.  I guess not.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:42:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Community rating (4.00 / 2)

this is in the bill.  It's the "community rating" piece--basically insurers have to charge the same rate to everyone in a defined area and demographic profile, so they can't just price the sick people out of the market.

---

by: RobK @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:42:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you are mistaken (4.00 / 1)

The Senate explicitly states that the price of plans will be based on age, smoking, and individual vs. family. You can't charge based on preexisting conditions. There is there possibility of discounts for wellness programs.

                 

`(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by--

                       `(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;

                       `(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);

                       `(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and

                       `(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and

not sure if link will work

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:45:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

left out (0.00 / 0)

location as an allowable factor in price.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:46:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing is going to be easier to change (0.00 / 0)

than the mandate.  If it looks like a significant number of people are going to be fined, I have difficulty believing the mandate won't be changed immediately.

There is an important relationship between the subsidy and the mandate that I think gets missed.  I posted a reasonably detailed look at the polling, and if the subidies prove inadequate this plan is going to be a disaster unless the mandates are reversed.

---

by: fladem @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:36:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for all the feedback guys (4.00 / 1)

Looks like this entire bill is tied at the core to the mandate.  So really the only way to improve it is to have some sort of PO attached?  Because there is no way to drop the mandate at this point, so it must be counteracted somehow?

---

by: zot2323 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 21:12:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arcuri is back to undecided.... (0.00 / 0)

His staff told the plum line yesterday...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:40:44 PM UTC

"You would think that members of Congress who are taking a stand based on deeply-held beliefs..." (0.00 / 0)

Let me stop you right there :)

c.f. Mark Twain on Congress

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:01:32 PM UTC

Kucinich says he'll vote against the current bill. (0.00 / 0)

I have to think this is an attempt to put in some pressure to sweeten the pot. He can't possibly think such a move would be anything short of a political disaster for him. He'll surely find something in the final draft that lets him change his mind.

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:04:51 PM UTC

No, it's kucinich being kucinich.... (4.00 / 2)

Kucinich doesn't make deals... period.  Sometimes that works out (saving Cleveland Muni Power), sometimes it doesn't (Cleveland going bankrupt 'cos of Clevleand Muni Power).

He proudly voted no on the house bill, why would anyone think he would vote differently.

The GOP could have had this seat this year if they had nominated Jim Trakas, that's how mad the voters in his district are at him.  All they have is some teabag candidate, so Kucinich can do whatever he wants, he has no opposition.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:10:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At this point (4.00 / 1)

I think you can anticipate some challenge from Obama's left in the primaries (unless the economy recovers).  It makes all the sense in the world for him to vote against this to position himself as the left alternative to Obama in the primaries.

The best thing from his perspective is for the Bill to pass and and for him to vote against it.

However, if the Bill fails by a vote I think he is done in the Democratic Party.

---

by: fladem @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:40:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the thing-- (0.00 / 0)

he's saying he'll vote against it even if his is the deciding vote. I still can't believe he'd be that stupid.

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:02:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Saying it (0.00 / 0)

and doing it is another thing.

My guess is that the Bill is going to pass by 2 votes - just like the budget bill in '93.

---

by: fladem @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:59:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: hcr vote (0.00 / 0)

he's saying he'll vote against it even if his is the deciding vote.

Saying it and doing it is another thing.

exactly. a-fuckin-men!

you don't go and say 'yes, i'll vote yes even if there's no po' if you want to get a po

unless you're lynn woolsey...

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 02:56:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]